get_enrollment_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the record is semester-scoped and listing returned fields, but it does not disclose behaviors like default term handling, null results, or data availability. Because annotations cover the core safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the payload, and the second provides routing guidance. Every sentence contributes information that is not already present in the annotations or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what the record contains, how it is scoped, and when to use it. The minor gap around term format/default is low-risk because the parameter is optional and the output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema gives no description for the single term parameter (0% coverage). The description adds the semantic clue that the record is 'for a semester,' which helps map term to a semester selector, but it does not explain accepted formats, default behavior, or what null means. This partially compensates for the schema gap but not completely.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource ('Enrollment record for a semester') and enumerates meaningful content: status, units carried vs maximum, class level, degree/college/major, and advisor. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_student_context by noting it covers details 'beyond what get_student_context gives,' so an agent can tell which tool to use.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Call this for questions about enrollment verification, unit load, or program/major details beyond what get_student_context gives.' This names the alternative tool and sets a clear boundary between general student context and enrollment-specific details.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.